Cited by 261Resilience and Mental HealthPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Resilience through the lens of interactionism: a systematic review.

Pangallo, Antonio, Zibarras, Lara, Lewis, Rachel, Flaxman, Paul·2015·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

This systematic review presents findings from a conceptual and methodological review of resilience measures using an interactionist theoretical framework. The review is also intended to update findings from previous systematic reviews. Two databases (EBSCOHost and Scopus) were searched to retrieve empirical studies published up until 2013, with no lower time limit. All articles had to meet specific inclusion criteria, which resulted in 17 resilience measures selected for full review. Measures were conceptually evaluated against an interactionist framework and methodologically reviewed using Skinner's (1981) validity evidence framework. We conclude that inconsistencies associated with the definition and operationalization of resilience warrant further conceptual development to explain resilience as a dynamic and interactive phenomenon. In particular, measures of resilience may benefit from a greater focus on within-person variance typically associated with behavioral consistency across situations. The use of alternative measurement modalities to self-report scales, such as situational judgment tests, is proposed as a way of advancing knowledge in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000024

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pangallo, A., Zibarras, L., Lewis, R., & Flaxman, P.
Affiliations
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • Kingston University London (GB)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2015-03
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2161180255
Cited by
261
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
resilience, resilience indicators, interactionism, within-person variance, behavioral consistency, situational judgment tests, self-report scale, operationalization of resilience
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Resilience, Psychological, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review